The racist indian fellows claim:
"Sripada Sridhara Svami comments on this verse of Srimad Bhagavatam (7.11.13):
sudram tu na mantravat samskara yuktam jagada na copanayanavantam ato nasau dvijah….ato vivaha vyatirikta samskaranavasyakatvat upanayanasya tu sarvatha nishedhat na tasya dvijatvam
“The sudra is not to be invested with mantras nor with the sacred thread, hence he is not a dvija...Other than marriage there is no samskara for the sudra, therefore the sacred thread ceremony is forbidden for him in all respects and he cannot be a dvija.”
Those who preach mere meritocracy often quote this verse from Srimad Bhagavatam (7.11.35):
yasya yallakshanam proktam pumso varnabhivyanjakam
yad anyatrapi drisyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiset
“If what has been declared as a feature of the grade of society of a man is perceived even in another (person belonging to another caste), the latter should be particularly called by that very denomination (caste).”
Sridhara Svami comments on this verse:
samadibhir eva brahmanadi vyavaharo mukhyah na jati matrad ityaha yasyeti. yad yadi anyatra varnantare’pi tad varnantaram tenaiva lakshana nimittenaiva varnena vinirdiset na tu jati nimittenetyarthah
“One is not just a brahmana by birth – the main symptom is good behaviour like self-control. If such virtue is found elsewhere, in another caste, this determines the person’s varna, not just birth.”
However, Sridhara Svami does not say here that non-brahmanas can receive the sacred thread. If he did, then he would contradict his commentary of verse 13."
End of quote.
What Sridhara Swami is saying in verse 13 is that a Sudra can not receive the sacred thread ...... ....... because he is a Sudra. This is obvious. How can someone who has not Brahmana qualifications or who has not been born as Brahmana receive a sacred thread ? Of course he can not.
But in verse 15 Sridhara Swami clearly explains:
"One is not just a brahmana by birth – the MAIN symptom is good behaviour like self-control."
And so, if a Sudra has qualifications may receive the sacred thread. There is no contradiction. Sridhara Swami explains in verse 13 that a Sudra can not receive the sacred thread but then explains in verse 15 if that the same Sudra presents qualifications should be considered a Brahmana and obviously get Yajnopavita. It is a natural consequence. Very simple. Only those who are ENVIOUS of the high position of a Vaishnava in relation to all other is that fail to realize this.
Racist Indian fellows also state:
“A votary of the Supreme Lord may be born a sudra, or nishada, nay, even a dog-eater, but anyone who views such a votary according to pedigree or caste, most certainly percipitates his fall to the infernal regions.” (Hari Bhakti Vilasa 10,119 )
“Those who consider the deity of Vishnu to be a mere stone, one’s superiors to be mere human beings and the Vaishnava to belong to a certain caste…..are surely hellish persons.” (cited in Srila Rupa Gosvami’s ‘Padyavali’, 114)
To that the response is: These verses are glorifications of the Vaishnavas, that caution us not to treat lower born Vaishnavas with disdain or contempt and urge us to keep them in honour."
End of quote.
These statements are not only indicative to not treat lower born Vaisnava with disdain, but to consider a Sudra and even a Mllecha as a Brahmana if they present qualifications.
Regarding Sri Caitanya following Maryada, social etiquette of Varnasrama. Sometimes He has followed (as in the case of Haridas Thakur not enter the Jagannatha Temple) and sometimes has not followed. The main consideration was to follow Vaisnava Maryada, Vaisnava etiquette.
"After hearing this, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya asked Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, “Why did Īśvara Purī keep a servant who comes from a śūdra family?”
Purport:
"Both Kāśīśvara and Govinda were personal servants of Īśvara Purī. After Īśvara Purī’s demise, Kāśīśvara went to visit all the holy places of India. Following the orders of his spiritual master, Govinda immediately went to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for shelter. Govinda came from a śūdra family, but because he was initiated by Īśvara Purī, he was certainly a brāhmaṇa. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya here asked Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu why Īśvara Purī accepted a disciple from a śūdra family. According to the smṛti-śāstra, which gives directions for the management of the varṇāśrama institution, a brāhmaṇa cannot accept a disciple from the lower castes. In other words, a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra cannot be accepted as a servant. If a spiritual master accepts such a person, he is contaminated. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya therefore asked why Īśvara Purī accepted a servant or disciple born of a śūdra family.
In answer to this question, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied that His spiritual master, Īśvara Purī, was so empowered that he was as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As such, Īśvara Purī was the spiritual master of the whole world. He was not a servant of any mundane rule or regulation. An empowered spiritual master like Īśvara Purī can bestow his mercy upon anyone, irrespective of caste or creed. The conclusion is that an empowered spiritual master is authorized by Kṛṣṇa and his own guru and should therefore be considered as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. That is the verdict of Viśvanātha Cakravartī: sākṣād-dharitvena. An authorized spiritual master is as good as Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As Hari is free to act as He likes, the empowered spiritual master is also free. As Hari is not subject to mundane rules and regulations, the spiritual master empowered by Him is also not subject. According to the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Antya-līlā 7.11), kṛṣṇa-śakti vinā nahe tāra pravartana. An authorized spiritual master empowered by Kṛṣṇa can spread the glories of the holy name of the Lord, for he has power of attorney from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the mundane world, anyone possessing his master’s power of attorney can act on behalf of his master. Similarly, a spiritual master empowered by Kṛṣṇa through his own bona fide spiritual master should be considered as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. That is the meaning of sākṣād-dharitvena. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore describes the activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the bona fide spiritual master as follows." (CC Madhya 10. 136)
"Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “Both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and My spiritual master, Īśvara Purī, are completely independent. Therefore neither the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor that of Īśvara Purī is subject to any Vedic rules and regulations." (CC Madhya 10.137)
“The mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not restricted to the jurisdiction of caste and creed. Vidura was a śūdra, yet Kṛṣṇa accepted lunch at his home." (CC Madhya 10.138)
“Lord Kṛṣṇa’s mercy is dependent only on affection. Being obliged only by affection, Lord Kṛṣṇa acts very independently."
Purport:
"Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is merciful, but His mercy does not depend on mundane rules and regulations. He is dependent only on affection and nothing else. Service to Lord Kṛṣṇa can be rendered in two ways. One can serve the Lord in affection or in veneration. When service is rendered in affection, it is the Lord’s special mercy. When service is rendered in veneration, it is doubtful whether Kṛṣṇa’s mercy is actually involved. If Kṛṣṇa’s mercy is there, it is not dependent on any prescribed caste or creed. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to inform Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the spiritual master of everyone, and He does not care for mundane caste or creed. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu cited the example of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s accepting food at the house of Vidura, who was a śūdra by birth. By the same token, Īśvara Purī, an empowered spiritual master, could show mercy to anyone. As such, he accepted Govinda, although the boy was born in a śūdra family. When Govinda was initiated, he became a brāhmaṇa and was accepted as Īśvara Purī’s personal servant. In the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī states that one who is initiated by a bona fide spiritual master immediately becomes a brāhmaṇa. A pseudo spiritual master cannot transform a person into a brāhmaṇa, but an authorized spiritual master can do so. This is the verdict of śāstra, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and all the Gosvāmīs." (CC Madhya 10.139)
These Racist Indian fellows (from Bharata Varsa) are a joke !!!
1 - HH Mahanidhi Madangopal Dasa Babaji Maharaja have not rejected Srila Prabhupada by accepting Vesha. Srila Prabhupada is extremely important to him. Vide his facebook official wall. I've spoken with him.
2 - According to our dear racist fellows he never, never, never, EVER could have accepted Sannyasa or Babaji. Because for them HH Mahanidhi Madangopal Dasa Babaji Maharaja is a Mllecha. Poor ones !!!
3 - This was one of Narottama dasa Thakura's main preaching points – that a Vaishnava is not a mllecha, nor yavana, nor Brahmin, nor sudra, etc. Vaisnavism should only be gauged according to one's surrender and realization in Krishna consciousness. There should be no consideration of birth, age, caste, creed, shoe size, education, social status, who one is initiated by, the year one took initiation, or when one first came in contact with devotional service. Nor is Krishna consciousness advancement dependent on household duties, taking sannyasa, ritualistic performances, group agreement, or the like – simply how one is absorbed in one's service to the lotus eyed Lord. This is the conclusion of Narottama dasa Thakura's preaching strategy.
4 - sudram va bhagavad-bhaktam
nisadam sva-pacam tatha
viksate jati-samanyat
sa yati narakam dhruvam
"One who considers a devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead who was born in a family of sudras, nisadas or candalas to belong to that particular caste certainly goes to hell." (Padma Purana)
Wait and you'll see them saying that this verse is an interpolation. Can you believe that...
But the Srimad Bhagavatam IS NOT interpolated.
SB 7.11.35
yasya yal lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ
puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiśet
Word for word:
yasya — of whom; yat — which; lakṣaṇam — symptom; proktam — described (above); puṁsaḥ — of a person; varṇa-abhivyañjakam — indicating the classification (brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, etc); yat — if; anyatra — elsewhere; api — also; dṛśyeta — is seen; tat — that; tena — by that symptom; eva — certainly; vinirdiśet — one should designate.
Translation:
"If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification."
Purport:
"Herein it is clearly stated by Nārada Muni that one should not be accepted as a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra according to birth, for although this is going on now, it is not accepted by the śāstras. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (4.13), cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ. Thus the four divisions of society — brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra — are to be ascertained according to qualities and activities. If one was born in a brāhmaṇa family and has acquired the brahminical qualifications, he is to be accepted as a brāhmaṇa; otherwise, he should be considered a brahma-bandhu. Similarly, if a śūdra acquires the qualities of a brāhmaṇa, although he was born in a śūdra family, he is not a śūdra; because he has developed the qualities of a brāhmaṇa, he should be accepted as a brāhmaṇa. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is meant to develop these brahminical qualities. Regardless of the community in which one was born, if one develops the qualities of a brāhmaṇa he should be accepted as a brāhmaṇa, and he then may be offered the order of sannyāsa. Unless one is qualified in terms of the brahminical symptoms, one cannot take sannyāsa. In designating a person a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, birth is not the essential symptom. This understanding is very important. Herein Nārada Muni distinctly says that one may be accepted according to the caste of his birth if he has the corresponding qualifications, but otherwise he should not. One who has attained the qualifications of a brāhmaṇa, regardless of where he was born, should be accepted as a brāhmaṇa. Similarly, if one has developed the qualities of a śūdra or a caṇḍāla, regardless of where he was born, he should be accepted in terms of those symptoms."
Also, Srila Rupa Goswami in Sri Upadesamrta:
http://www.vedabase.com/en/noi/6
"According to this formula, the gosvāmīs who are descendants of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu and Śrī Advaita Prabhu are certainly devotees, but devotees coming from other families should not be discriminated against; indeed, whether the devotees come from a family of previous ācāryas or from an ordinary family, they should be treated equally. One should not think, “Oh, here is an American gosvāmī,” and discriminate against him. Nor should one think, “Here is a nityānanda-vaṁśa-gosvāmī.” There is an undercurrent of protest against our awarding the title gosvāmī to the American Vaiṣṇavas of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Sometimes people flatly tell the American devotees that their sannyāsa or title of gosvāmī is not bona fide. However, according to the statements of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in this verse, an American gosvāmī and a gosvāmī in a family of ācāryas are nondifferent."
To RACISTS worldwide (especially INDIA)
Karma Law !!!
Undoubtedly born in a Mllecha family is very inauspicious due to the accumulation of sinful activities in many past lives. But a Jiva not only accumulates sinful activities. This same Jiva also accumulates pious and devotional activities for many lives that allow it, to even with a lower birth, be a Vaisnava and present brahminical qualifications.
Similarly, someone who is born in a high family due accumulation of pious activities, also would have accumulated sinful activities which make he/she although born in a high family worse than a Mllecha.
All karmas do not produce their results all at once. From the accumulated Karmas (Sancita Karma) a certain portion is taken out for being worked out or consumed in this birth. Many ripe Karmas amongst the accumulated Sancita Karma join together and bring one life. This forms the Prarabdha Karma of the present life.
When soul takes a new body (rebirth or reincarnation) a part of his Sancita Karma (some portion from good Karma and some portion from bad Karma) is dispensed as his Prarabdha Karma.
Another argument of India RACISTS is that Western devotees are more in Maya than devotees from India. Of course yes, the influence of Maya in the West is much higher. Just for that.
